Exactly - Yes - Yes No, only the TV's lag relative to the monitor. And that is an interesting point, cause there a two revisions of the same model. The old with 32ms lag and the new one with 4ms lag. I supposed i have the new one (4ms lag) cause i bought the monitor some time after the release of the new revision. 28 + some measurement inaccuracy -> ~50ms. I have to find out which revision i have ... Thx for asking
Assume that you have read the tutorial I provided. Assume that you understood how a display frame is transfered to the monitor. Assume that you know the time it will take for a frame to be completely transfered. Then you should know that at 60 Hz the whole frame will take 16.6 ms to transfer to the display, and at 120 ms it will take 8.3 ms. Then you should know that running double the refresh rate on a monitor will cause less lag. Then you would also know that it is more lag to the display than input lag. It has nothing at all to do with the monitors input lag. I sure you're quotes are correct but when not understanding the full picture you are drawing the wrong conclusions. You keep saying that the refresh rate will not matter. You say that the refresh time is hidden in the input lag. How can you hide 16 ms inside 3 ms? I would say I have proven that they are two different things. Yes, I keep saying that you are wrong.
Hmm, found interesting test from PRAD site. It's Asus VG278HE which is capable of 144 Hz. First responsiveness (or response time): Asus VG278HE Part 6 Basically 3...4 ms in average which isn't bad I think. Then latency: Asus VG278HE Part 7 When driven as 60 Hz total averaged latency adds up to a 20,3 ms (this includes half of the response time which was 2,1 ms) and they suspected it's always holding one image in a buffer internally. However when driven as 144 Hz they said: So if we compare this 144 Hz monitor to a 60 Hz monitor with 3,3 ms total latency and we add refresh rate lag into play then we end up total latencies of: 60 Hz: 3,3 + 1000 / 60 = 20,0 ms 144 Hz: 7,3 + 1000 / 144 = 14,2 ms Hmm 144 Hz monitor with sync off and max framerate set to maybe 140-142 FPS would only contain 1 quite small tearing and it would also allow higher graphic settings than 178 FPS method. Can't say I'm not interested! EDIT: 445 € at domestic webstore so I'm not very far from ordering one...
I would definitely look at the TV with some suspision. Running them separately would make you see the total lag of both the TV and monitor and you could maybe exclude any other possible lag. Throwing other possibilities up in the air... Tested different video outputs on the card? Both the HDMI and VGA input on the TV?
Lol, I have just said that the test numbers probably are correct. Man I have never said that input lag differ between 60 Hz and 120 Hz. I say that the input lag is a minor part of the monitors lag. I say that you are simply drawing the wrong conclusions. Pretty impressive that you dismiss Nationals own tutorial as wrong, but I'm sure that you can find other video hardware manufacturers document saying the same thing as National. Can't you just read up on how the display frame is transferred to the monitor so we can end this discussion?
The input lag tests are tests that measure the entire amount of input lag, from the beginning until the image is drawn and shown on screen for us humans to see, how is that not the entire input lag? Lol. Most of the monitors with very very low input lag are 60hz if u look at all the tests from the big websites (ex. Prad), how does that show any evidence that 120hz over 60hz has any worthly impact on the entire input lag of a monitor, from the beginning until the image is displayed on screen, if the ones that have achieved the best results in years of study and tests are mostly 60hz?
http://www.leobodnar.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=89&products_id=212 I was checking those out today, as price indicates from the same domestic store it seems.
That's because latency created by refresh rate is same for every single 60 Hz monitor out there (0...16,7 ms and it's constantly changing between those limits when frames are drawn without vsync). All 120 Hz monitors create latency of 0...8,3 ms because of the refresh rate. Therefore there is no point of adding refresh rate latency to the monitor latency measurements. However it's still important to understand that measured input lag between 60 and 120 Hz monitors is not the whole truth of how it affects to total input lag of controller to eyes. By the way PRAD is not using term input lag anymore. They are talking about response and signal delay times. Monitor's total latency is sum of the signal delay time and half of the averaged response time. I strongly feel we should do the same because term input lag is causing so much confusion to this debate. I'd suggest that starting from now by term input lag we mean the sum of all latencies from steering wheel movement to what has been shown on monitor screen.
To make it clear that you are wrong I make a very simple example. Most people say that the input lag of a CRT monitor is very low, yes it is under 1 ms probably very close to 0 ms. Does that mean that there is no total lag on that monitor? No, at 60 Hz refresh rate it will still take 16.6 ms to transfer the the complete display frame to that monitor. On average there will be 8.3 ms pixel lag in one frame. Thats why you get lower lag running higher refresh rates on a CRT also. Ok? Imagine yourself running a CRT monitor that is only doing refresh once a second. The CRT will still have no input lag at that refresh rate. Will running at 1 Hz give you more total lag?
Whats confusing about input lag? Its the delay that is between when you input a command and the time that it happens. If you talk about input lag on monitors, which is purely visual lag, dont confuse it to the rest of the gadgets that will cause input lag. Simple, easy to remember. Signal delay and response delay are also misleading terms that are actually in wide use already and in my mind dont really fit. Well maybe signal delay in some aspect since it is known from digital signal delay used in electronics. Response delay is the period of time between a stimulus and the reaction or response of an individual. The response delay is a function of the amount of information that needs to be processed, which is a medical way to say "input lag". The response time that monitors advertise has nothing to do with input lag, its pixel respond time which is how long does the pixel on your monitor/tv take time to change state, for example grey to grey or black to white, which two are usually measured and are different tasks for the pixel and gives different results. 90% of the crap that reads on your monitor/tv is advertisement crap and marketing terms, as are 100hz, 200hz, 400hz, 600hz etc... tv's. So go out and find out more of the actual functions of the hardware that you own or are about to purchase before throwing a hissy fit. 8 or 16ms, when human is concerned, you wouldnt know the difference if it would slap ya in the face, so calm down.
Keikei, before shopping a 120 Hz monitor remember that DVI will only support 120 Hz up to 1920x1080. I think 1920x1200 would be inside the bandwidth limitations but from what I read that resolution isn't given in the specification (but im a lazy reader sometimes). There will be no future update of DVI. With HDMI you need version 1.4 to run 1080p @ 120 Hz and have to wait for v2.0 for any higher resolution. If you like to use higher resolutions today will force you to use displayport. Both nVidia and AMD seems to have enforced bandwidth caps in their drivers limiting down to 330 MHz depending on driver version. Maybe http://120hz.net can be worth a read? Running monitors at different input and refresh rate will never be a good thing for low lag. As you say, switching to 120 Hz will only remove 8 ms of the total lag if the 120 Hz monitor have the same or less input lag.
"Input lag, because the LCD's A/D converter waits for each frame to be completely outputted before drawing it to the LCD panel. Many LCD monitors do post-processing before displaying the image in an attempt to compensate for poor color fidelity, which adds an additional lag. Further, a video scalar must be used when displaying non-native resolutions, which adds yet more lag. Scaling and post processing are usually done in a single chip on modern monitors, but each function that chip performs adds some delay. Some displays have a "Gaming " mode which disables mall or most processing to reduce perceivable input lag." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CRT,_LCD,_Plasma,_and_OLED
Well maybe not me but with 120 Hz monitor Chuck Norris would be able to dodge bullets so... BTW I'm not gaining any revs here so don't need any cooling, thank you very much! Just would like to see Novis and Spinelli finally get into agreement of this issue and therefore trying to give more explanation if I could. One reason could be that different terms are used bit "wildly" and maybe prevent Spinelli from seeing how increased refresh rate will lower the total input lag. I think Spinelli is very intelligent person and generally right 99,9% of the time but in this case he's not seeing the whole thing. I'm 99,9% sure of it!
Interesting gadget! It seems to create white spots (guessing the places where measurements are taken from) at three vertical levels of the screen so it could also show the refresh rate latency.
I didnt mean you.. I meant "you" as a collective that seems to be steaming with false information. Youre doing great, keep going. Unfortunatly its little expensive to just extinguish a curiosity.
Oh I'm sorry. Based on my previous post I thought you were replying directly to me. My bad. Indeed. Hmm, actually it's cheap so probably we don't have proper incomings at the moment.
Oh, finally someone is picking up on that. Thank you! Can someone with knowledge on panel technology confirm that all different types of LCD/plasma displays do a complete frame refresh at once instead of doing pixel refresh?
